My guess is that less than 5% of the CTS buyers would go for a Diesel engine, especially if it's $5K premium over the 3.6 DI engine. To be honest I would take the 3.6 DI over a Diesel engine even if it's the same price.

My guess is that less than 5% of the CTS buyers would go for a Diesel engine, especially if it's $5K premium over the 3.6 DI engine. To be honest I would take the 3.6 DI over a Diesel engine even if it's the same price.

Around 5% of Jettas are diesel..... yet there are waiting lists for them.

Excuse me! Cost more to design? Where did you get these facts?---- out of a Cheerios box? Your other "fact" that you HAVE
to pay more for a diesel, has more to do with quantity manufactured more than componentry.
Do a component by component comparison with a similarily dimensioned fuel-injected internal-combustion gasoline engine,
designed for high performance. Then lets talk about why it should cost more for a diesel!

More to manufacture? Why? Outside of maybe more mass, due to higher strength requirements, there should not be any
tolerance differences that would increase manufacturing costs. Sales ploy? --- most definitely!!!!

The things required to make a diesel engine perform, sound, and pollute like a gas engine all cost extra.

Those are all add-ons, and do not pertain to the cost of the engine design, which was the statement I referred to in my previous post.

High performance internal combustion, gasoline-fueled engines require similar external hardware, like catalytic convertors, and O2 sensors, to comply with mandated political agendas. So, those costs factor out as a wash. Turbochargers don't care whether they are on a diesel engine or a gas engine. Their technology is the same, but their physicals may vary. Again, volume of manufacture becomes the criteria on cost break-down, plus some amount for degree of sophistication. That is all covered in the extent of manufacturing devlopment. That is not to say that the engine designer does not have to have some
acumen about how the engine will be fabricated and adjust the design for the best use of the manufacturing processes.

The history here is a point. When GM first had Buick design the 3.5L BOP all-aluminum engine in the early 60's, it cost
$200 more to manufacture that engine than a larger cast-iron engine. The reason: The state-of-the-art in casting
aluminum engine blocks could not prevent or discover internal casting porosity. In some cases not until the engine was
90% machined. They did not have the pore-sealing technology then that later became SOP, so blocks were scrapped
that had a lot of time and money expended on them.
This was not a design fault, it was a manufacturing technology flaw, that has subsequently been solved.
But to save loosing money on scrap engine blocks, Buick switched back to the cast-iron block designs in 1964.

Today we have all-aluminum engines again, that are now considered run-of-the-mill designs and are made without the
prior manufacturing problems. They call that progress!!

Those are all add-ons, and do not pertain to the cost of the engine design, which was the statement I referred to in my previous post.

High performance internal combustion, gasoline-fueled engines require similar external hardware, like catalytic convertors, and O2 sensors, to comply with mandated political agendas. So, those costs factor out as a wash.

There is no way the BLUETEC technology cost the same the emissions technology used on the modern gasoline engines.

There is no way the BLUETEC technology cost the same the emissions technology used on the modern gasoline engines.

Again, you are confusing ivory-tower development technology with run-of-the-mill production design.
They are not even in the same ball park.
I know, I've been there----- on both sides, but at different times, of course!

Again, you are confusing ivory-tower development technology with run-of-the-mill production design.
They are not even in the same ball park.
I know, I've been there----- on both sides, but at different times, of course!

What do you want us to compare? Diesels need that "ivory tower technology" today, not in 30 years.

You mean additional carbon. Tons of new CO2 still come from the exhaust of a biodiesel-burning car.

That carbon was removed from the atmosphere by the plants that were using in biodiesel production. Hence, it's not "new carbon"

Carbon released by petrol diesel is "new carbon" because it was sucked up from the earth.

From www.E85Fuel.com

Although CO2 is released during ethanol production and combustion, it is recaptured as a nutrient to the crops that are used in its production. Unlike fossil fuel combustion, which unlocks carbon that has been stored for millions of years, use of ethanol results in low increases to the carbon cycle.

What do you want us to compare? Diesels need that "ivory tower technology" today, not in 30 years.

Let's go back to the original questionable premise--"that it costs more to design a diesel engine instead of a gasoline one."
The emphasis here was on "design", which is the comment that I challenged.

Go back to the orginal GM press release.
"GM's development of the new engine is being coordinated under the leadership of GM Powertrain's European operations in Turin, Italy, in cooperation with VM Motori based in Cento,Italy. GM Powertrain will focus on the development of the clean combustion process, electronic engine control and exhaust-gas aftertreatment, as well as calibration and integration into GM vehicles. VM Motori will build the new unit at its plant in Cento,Italy, and is responsible for the mechanical aspects of the engine's design, development and bench testing."

No where did this release say the Cadillac was doing any of the engine work, so the design cost is coming from a different pocket in GM's pants! These are the ivory-tower divisions of GM, not the Cadillac division!

The only additional cost to Cadillac may be some more hardware in the building of the car, but not $5000. worth!
This whole "schtick" of, "diesels cost more", is a sales ploy that has been foisted on the auto buyers for far too long!

I'm surprised nobody has taken the time to mention this. This same engine, with two extra cylinders (thus a V- would make roughly 333 horsepower and 540 lb-ft out of a mere 3.9L. Even if it costs $10,000, that's a really good engine! THAT is what I would put in the Camaro. You know, a $10,000 premium off the base Camaro ($25,000), and you got more torque than a Dodge Viper! Use it for drag racing. Ha-ha! I wonder what sort of gas mileage it would get, especially if you matched it with the 2-mode Hybrid transmission! Or you could make it the standard engine in the Express Cargo Van.

I'm surprised nobody has taken the time to mention this. This same engine, with two extra cylinders (thus a V- would make roughly 333 horsepower and 540 lb-ft out of a mere 3.9L. Even if it costs $10,000, that's a really good engine! THAT is what I would put in the Camaro. You know, a $10,000 premium off the base Camaro ($25,000), and you got more torque than a Dodge Viper! Use it for drag racing. Ha-ha! I wonder what sort of gas mileage it would get, especially if you matched it with the 2-mode Hybrid transmission! Or you could make it the standard engine in the Express Cargo Van.

the diesel comming in ~09 is a v-8 and will prolly be around that power output, but be closer to 4L - 4.5L.... the announcement for it is in powertrain.

Uh you left out something. A DUMBASS Oil Man hooked on Defense sits in the white house.

Heh, you think you hate him there, think about how all us of foreigners feel! He really goes a long way to making America and Americans in gerenal look bad.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand..

I'm a big fan of diesels and i'm thinking of trading my '05 Barina 1.4 (Corsa C) for an Astra Diesel. One of the factors for me too is the fact that Bio-Diesel is becoming widely available in Australia (well at least in the big cities where I live), so not only will I save on fuel, I won't be chewing up fossil fuels.
As long as I give it careful maintinance, all should be relatively ok.

Two thoughts though:

*Why haven't oil compnaies that Bio-Diesel should be cheaper and easier to make then regular Diesel?
*Why haven't car companies pressed ahead with diesels designed to run better and more efficiently on Bio-Diesel?

"Biodiesel" is usually only a diesel blend with "some" biofuel. Pure biodisel conversion kist include a fuel heater to ensure the oil is fluid enough. Pure biodiesel will "freeze" in the tank at refrigeration temperatures, a frequent occurance even in Australian winters.

Heh, you think you hate him there, think about how all us of foreigners feel! He really goes a long way to making America and Americans in gerenal look bad.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand..

I'm a big fan of diesels and i'm thinking of trading my '05 Barina 1.4 (Corsa C) for an Astra Diesel. One of the factors for me too is the fact that Bio-Diesel is becoming widely available in Australia (well at least in the big cities where I live), so not only will I save on fuel, I won't be chewing up fossil fuels.
As long as I give it careful maintinance, all should be relatively ok.

Two thoughts though:

*Why haven't oil compnaies that Bio-Diesel should be cheaper and easier to make then regular Diesel?
*Why haven't car companies pressed ahead with diesels designed to run better and more efficiently on Bio-Diesel?

Which cities? A search through the biodiesel association only finds outlets supplied by Gull Petroleum in WA and SAFF in SA, and B100 is only available in three SAFF outlets (a few more have B20 marketed as Premium Diesel).